IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. Criminal Original Jurisdiction (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) Writ Petition (Criminal) No.

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Criminal Original Jurisdiction (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) Writ Petition (Criminal) No. of 2013 In the matter of: Dharampal. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & Others Respondents Synopsis The instant petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the State of Haryana to immediately provide full security to the entire family of the petitioner entirely at the state expense. This petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed by various petitioners in respect of rape, gang rape and rape and murder in the state of Haryana where a large number of sexual assaults have occurred on women particularly poor women from the backward classes. The brazenness and the frequency of the rapes indicate that in the state of Haryana

2 there is a sense of impunity among certain male sections and a feeling that rape will go unpunished. The first petition in this series is Susheel Kumar Versus State of Haryana, Writ Petition (Crl) 184 of 2012 and on this petition the Supreme Court on made the following order: Upon hearing the counsel, the Court made the following order: Issue notice returnable in six weeks. Dasti, in addition to the ordinary process. The second petition is Sonu Versus State of Haryana & Ors., Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 86 of These petitions show a common trend of the most brutal sexual assaults followed by police inaction and in many cases tacit police support for the accused persons. The proceedings in Court reveal a lack of proper and professional legal aid. Hence these petitions have been filed in a series to highlight the predicament of women who are the victims of rape in the state of Haryana and to seek certain reliefs not only for themselves but also for women in general so that the legal processes are strengthened and the legal system responds adequately to the plight of the rape victims.

3 This petition raises the following points of law of general public importance: A. What are the rights of a victim of gang rape to immediate relief in terms of the state providing accommodation at state expense when the victim is poor and it is unsafe to live in the area where the rape is committed and it is necessary to reside elsewhere on account of stigma and threats made by the families of the accused? B. What are the rights of the victim of gang rape where the victim and her family are stigmatized? C. What are the rights of the victim who is a school going girl after she is pulled out of school? Is the State liable to ensure good quality education free of cost? D. Is the victim liable to be compensated, and if so what would reasonable compensation for such a heinous crime that stigmatizes a family for a very long time? E. What are the rights of the victim to get professional and competent free legal aid? Whose responsibility is it to

4 immediately provide such legal assistance? Why was it not so provided and who is to be held liable? F. Apart from the Public Prosecutor, do the victims have a right to an independent and incorruptible legal aid lawyer to be provided at the State expense? In the context of the various decisions of the Supreme Court on victims rights as below set out, is it necessary for the State to provide such competent counsel apart from the Public Prosecutor who conducts the case? G. Is it correct for the State, while providing security to the victim on a threat perception, to make the victim pay for the travel of the security personnel as well as their food? Is it not a double oppression for victims of rape who are threatened by the accused to be required by the State to provide food for security personnel and pay all the travel expenses? H. What should be the elements of a rehabilitation scheme? In certain cases the State has provided BPL card holders with a 100 sq. yard plot of land? In some cases BPL card holders have been provided with Indira Awas Yojana houses. In some cases persons have been provided with

5 government employment. In other cases, free grain has been provided. Is there, therefore, an urgent need for the State of Haryana to frame a generous rehabilitation package so that all victims of sexual assaults and their families have the comfort post the incident of being handsomely rehabilitated? I. In a situation where persons acting on behalf of the accused persons have threatened the children with serious consequences how should the protection programme be devised so as to ensure that no harm comes to the victim? FACTS In the present case, the Petitioner, Dharampal, son of Punnaram, resident of Village Chotikalsi, Tehsil Nilokhadi, Haryana, is the father of the victim girl M aged 15 at the time of the incident. He is a labourer. He is from the Scheduled Caste (DNT). M was studying in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Nilokhadi in the 11 th standard. On at about 8 a.m. while she was walking to her school after alighting from the bus she was pulled into a car by 2 persons Aman son of Sultan Singh

6 and Krishan son of Fateh Singh, from the dominant caste. She was in the car for about 3-4 hours during which time these 2 persons repeatedly raped her. Petitioner is not going into the details of this incident as it is not necessary for this Article 32 petition. Thereafter, the 2 accused persons dropped M at Village Unispur which near her village at about 12 noon. While releasing her, these 2 accused persons said that if M did not return to them every 10 days her parents would be killed. When reached home her parents were not there as they had gone to the school searching for her. Her neighbor, Kusum, wife of Sukhram, came to the house and told M that she knew beforehand that this was going to happen and that M should claim Rs. 70,000 by way of compensation. M replied that I don t want to talk about this incident because otherwise in her community she would not be able get married. M did not inform her parents for 2 days. She then informed her mother about the rape as well as the threat to kill her parent if she disclosed the rape. Neither M nor her mother informed the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the Principal of the school on coming to hear about the incident deleted M s name from the school register thus effectively removing her from the school.

7 The Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana in its reports dated and found human semen stains on the underwear and on the seat cover of the car. On , the Petitioners wife was at the chemist s shop the 2 accused persons who had raped M abducted the petitioner s wife and killed her. Her dead body was recovered on Since petitioner s wife was missing from , petitioner went to the Butana police station to report the same. The SHO Sanjeev Malik refused to record petitioner s complaint. Ultimately petitioner wrote a complaint and submitted it to the Chowki-incharge, ASI, Ram Prakash, who was present at the thana even though he was not on duty. He tore the complaint. Ram Prakash was a relative of the accused persons. After tearing the complaint submitted by the petitioner, Ram Prakash wrote his own version on a sheet of paper. Petitioner signed on that paper not realizing that Ram Prakash has not written what he had stated and moreover, petitioner was in a traumatized state of mind. It appears that Ram Prakash wrongly wrote that the wife of the petitioner was missing from instead of

8 On at 4.45 p.m. the body of petitioner s wife was found in a field on the banks of the river Sarsa. The postmortem report gave the cause of death as strangulation and head injury. That on , the victim lodged an FIR at Karnal, P.S. Bhutana vide FIR No. 394 about the rape committed to her and the threat received with regard to the life of her mother and the subsequent murder of her mother. Chargesheet was framed with regard to this FIR on The petitioner and the victim girl continued to reside in the village. The family members of the accused continued to pressurize them to withdraw the case. For example, the uncle of Aman, Joginder Singh as well as the father of Aman, Sultan Singh, threatened the petitioner that just as his wife was killed so he too would be killed. This happened several times. Therefore the petitioner lodged an FIR on , vide FIR No. 40 of That the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were arrested and are in jail. Chargesheet has been filed.

9 In accordance with the provisions of SC/ST Atrocities Act, the state of Haryana paid the petitioner interim compensation of Rs. 60,000 in respect of the rape of his daughter and Rs. 3,75,000 in respect of the murder of his wife. Such levels of compensation are grossly inadequate and adds insult to injury. LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS DATE EVENT The Petitioner s daughter was kidnapped and repeatedly gang raped by the two accused in their car The Petitioner s wife was at the chemist shop from where the 2 accused person abducted her and killed her The petitioner had gone to make a complaint to the Butana Police Station about his missing wife Death body of the petitioner s wife was found on the banks of river Sarsa The Victim lodged an FIR with regard to her rape and the murder of her mother Chragesheet framed with regard to FIR No. 394 dated

10 Petitioner lodged an FIR with regard to the treats received by him from the family members of the accused. Hence, this Petition.

11 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) WRIT PETITION (Crl.) NO. OF 2013 In the matter of: Dharampal Son of Shri Punnaram r/o village Chotikalsi, Tehsil Nilokhadi Haryana. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Haryana Through its Chief Secretary 4 th Floor, Haryana Civil Secretariat Sector 1, Chandigarh. Respondent No Aman s/o Sultan Singh r/o Lathro PS Butana Knl Haryana Respondent No Krishan s/o Fathe Singh r/o Raipur Roran PS Butana Knl Haryana Respondent No Kusham w/o Sukhram r/o Kalshi PS Butana Knl Haryana Respondent No. 4 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER.

12 TO THE HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. This petition has been filed under article 32 of the constitution of India filed by various petitioners in respect of rape, gang rape and rape and murder in the state of Haryana where a large number of sexual assaults have occurred on women, particularly poor women from the backward classes. The brazenness and the frequency of the rapes indicate that in the state of Haryana, there is a sense of impunity among certain male sections and a feeling that rape will go unpunished. The first petition in this series is Sushil Kumar Versus State of Haryana, writ Petition (Crl) 184 of 2012, and on this petition the Supreme Court on 11/01/13 made the following order: Issue notice returnable in six weeks. Dasti, in addition to the ordinary process.

13 1A. That the present Writ Petition has been filed in the individual capacity. 2. That these petitions show a common trend of the most brutal sexual assaults followed by police inaction and in many cases tacit police support for the accused persons. The proceedings in court reveal a lack of proper and professional legal aid. Hence, these petitions have been filed in a series to highlight the predicament of women who are the victims of rape in the state of Haryana and to seek certain relief not only for themselves, but also for women in general so that the legal processes are strengthened and the legal system responds adequately to the plight of the rape victims. 3. That this petition raises the following points of law of general public importance: a. What are the rights of a victim of gang rape to immediate relief in terms of the state providing accommodation at state expense when the victim is poor and it is unsafe to live in the area where the rape is committed and it is necessary to reside elsewhere on account of stigma and threats made by the families of the accused?

14 b. What are the rights of the victim of gang rape where the victim and her family are stigmatized? c. What are the rights of the victim who is a school going girl after she is pulled out of school? Is the state liable to ensure good quality education free of cost? d. Is the victim liable to be compensated, and if so what would reasonable compensate for such a heinous crime that stigmatizes a family for a very long time? e. What are the rights of the victim to get professional and competent free legal aid? Whose responsibility is it to immediately provide such legal assistance? Why was it not so provided and who is to be held liable? f. Apart from the Public Prosecutor, do the victims have a right to an independent and incorruptible legal aid lawyer to be provided at the State s expense? In the context of the various decisions of the Supreme Court on victims rights as below set out, is it necessary for the state to provide such competent counsel apart from the Public Prosecutor who conducts the case? g. Is it correct for the state, while providing security to the victim on a threat perception, to make the victim pay for the travel of the security personnel as well as

15 their food? Is it not a double oppression for victims of rape who are threatened by the accused to be required by the state to provide food for security personnel and pay all the travel expenses? h. What should be the elements of a rehabilitation scheme? In certain cases the state has provided BPL card holders with a 100 sq. yard plot of land. In some cases, BPL card holders have been provided with Indira Awaz Yojana employment. In other cases, free grain has been provided. Is there, therefore, an urgent need for the state of Haryana to frame a generous rehabilitation package so that all victims of sexual assaults and their families have the comfort post the incident of being handsomely rehabilitated? i. In a situation where persons acting on behalf of the accused persons have threatened the children with serious consequences how should the protection programme be devised so as to ensure that no harm comes to the victim? FACTS 4. That the petitioner, Dharampal, son of Punnaram, resident of village Chotikalsi, Tehsil Nilokhadi, Haryana, is the father of the victim girl M aged 15 years at the time of

16 the incident. He is a labourer. He is from the Scheduled Caste (DNT). 5. That M was studying in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Nilokhadi in the XI th Standard. On at about 8 a.m. at about 8 a.m., while she was walking to her school after alighting from the bus, she was pulled into a car by 2 persons Aman, son of Sultan Singh and Krishan, son of Fateh Singh, both from the dominant caste. She was in the car for about 3-4 hours during which these 2 persons repeatedly raped her. Petitioner is not going into the details of this incident as it is not necessary for this Article 32 petition. Thereafter, the 2 accused persons dropped M at village Unispur which is near her village at about 12 noon. While releasing her, these 2 accused persons said that if M did not return to them every 10 days, then her parents would be killed. When she reached home, her neighbour, Kusum, wife of Sukhram, came to the house and told M that she knew beforehand that this was going to happen and that M should claim Rs. 70, 000/- by way of compensation. M replied that I don t want to talk about this incident because otherwise in her community she would not be able to get married. M did not inform her parents for 2 days. She then informed her mother about the rape as well as the threat to kill her parent if she

17 disclosed the rape. Neither M nor her mother informed the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the Principal of the school on coming to hear about the incident deleted M s name from the school register thus effectively removing her from the school. 6. That on , the victim lodged an FIR at Karnal, P.S. Bhutana vide FIR No. 394 about the rape committed to her and the threat received with regard to the life of her mother and the subsequent murder of her mother. This is at Annexure P-1 (Page No. to ). 7. Thereafter, Forensic test was conducted upon the victim and that the reports dated and found human semen stains on the underwear and on the seat cover of the car. These are at Annexures P-2 (Page to ) (Colly) 8. That on , the Petitioner s wife was at the chemist s shop from where 2 accused persons who had raped M abducted the Petitioner s wife and killed her. Her dead body was recovered on That since the petitioner s wife was missing from , the petitioner went to the Butana Police Station to report the same. The SHO, Sanjeev Malik refused to record

18 petitioner s complaint. Ultimately, petitioner wrote a complaint and submitted it to the Chowki-in-charge, ASI Ram Prakash who was present at the thana even though he was not on duty. He tore the complaint. Ram Prakash was a relative of the accused persons. After tearing the complaint submitted by the petitioner, Ram Prakash wrote his own version on a sheet of paper. The Petitioner signed on that paper not realizing that Ram Prakash has not written what he had stated and moreover, petitioner was in a traumatized state of mind. It appears that Ram Prakash wrongly wrote that the wife of the Petitioner was missing from instead of That on at 04:45 p.m., the body of Petitioner s wife was found in a field on the banks of the river Sarsa. The post mortem report gave the cause of death as strangulation and head-injury. 11. Chargesheet was framed with regard to this FIR on This is at Annexure P-3 (Page No. to ). 12. The petitioner and the victim girl continued to reside in the village. The family members of the accused continued to pressurized them to withdraw the case. For example, the uncle of Aman, Joginder Singh, as well as the father of

19 Aman, Sultan Singh, threatened the petitioner that just as his wife was killed, so also he will be killed. This happened several times. Therefore, the petitioner lodged an FIR on vide FIR No. 40 of This is at Annexure P- 4 (Page No. to ). 13. That Respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 were arrested and are in jail. 14. That in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the State of Haryana paid the petitioner interim compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in respect of the rape of his daughter and Rs. 3,75,000/- in respect of the murder of his wife. Such levels of compensation are grossly inadequate and add insult to injury. 15. That no other writ petition of similar nature has been filed at any other court other than this Hon ble court. GROUNDS A. Because there has been a marked increase in the incidents of rape cases in the State of Haryana and due to the lackluster attitude of the police authorities

20 and improper investigation most of the accused persons are scot free. B. Because there is a clear breakdown of the criminal justice system and the complete denial of the protection to women specially women belonging to the Dalit class. C. Because in most cases the Panchayat or politicians or influential people intervene and force the victim and family of the victim not to register cases or to withdraw the cases against the accused. D. Because the Khap Panchayat exerted enormous pressure on the petitioner and the girl s family not to pursue the matter with the police. E. Because several of the alleged accused persons belong to the higher sections of the society and are politically influential and as such investigation in most cases is not conducted thoroughly. F. Because the victims are pressurized by the police and the local panchayats including peoples from the dominant community not to register cases against

21 the accused persons in order to avoid publicity in the news media. G. Because most of the victims belong to the dalit class are illiterate and do not have the means to approach the courts for justice. H. Because in the present case, the victim has been kidnapped on her way to the school in broad daylight. I. Because in the present case, the victim was raped by the two accused for about 3-4 hours. J. Because in the present case, when the authorities of the school came to know about the incident, the Principal removed her name form the school register thus, effectively removing her from the school. K. Because in the present case, when the victim was told released by the two accused, was told to

22 return to them every 10 days, then her parents would be killed. L. Because in the present case, after about 25 days of the incident when the mother of the victim went missing and after 2 days, her death body was recovered from the banks of river Sarsa. M. Because in the present case, when the petitioner went to report about the missing of his wife, the SHO of Butana Police Station refused to record the petitioner s complaint. N. Because in the present case, when the petitioner finally wrote his complaint and submitted it to the Chowki-in-Charge, ASI Ram Prakash tore the complaint and wrote another complaint of his version and the petitioner was made to sign that complaint. O. Because in the present petition, the petitioner and the victim are being continuously pressurized by

23 the family members of the accused to withdraw the case. P. Because in the present petition, inadequate compensations have been paid to the victim and the petitioner for rape and death of the petitioner s wife respectively. Q. That the petitioner has no other equally efficacious alternative remedy than to approach this Hon ble Court. PRAYER The prayers in the petition are as follows: a. Issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the state of Haryana to immediately provide full security to the entire family of the petitioner entirely at the state expense;

24 b. Any other Order as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove. c. For an order directing the Respondent No.1 to frame a rehabilitation scheme for the rape victim and to provide therein for the facilities and services set out in clause H Page E of the SLP and then to implement rehabilitation scheme forthwith. d. For an order Directing the Respondent No.1 to provide for the education of the victim girl in a safe and reputed educational institution entirely at State expense. e. For an order directing the Respondents to pay compensation of Rs 10 lakhs to the victim girl for rape and a further Rs 10 lakhs to the family for the murder of her mother. f. For an order directing the Respondent No.1 to provide a senior advocate at State expense free of cost to represent the victim girl in the trial court. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.

25 Drawn by : Filed on : Filed by: JYOTI MENDIRATTA (ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)

26 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) WRIT PETITION (Crl.) NO. OF 2013 In the matter of: Dharampal. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & Others Respondents APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS TO THE HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. Petitioner has set out the facts and legal submissions in the body of the petition and, for the sake of brevity, these are not being set out herein in extensor. 2. That the petitioner s daughter s (the victim) name has been removed from the school register by the Principal of the school and that she is not able to get admission to any

27 other school because of the incident and because of threat from the peoples of the dominant caste. 3. That the victim has not been paid adequate compensation for the rape nor has the petitioner been paid compensation for the death of the Petitioner s wife. 4. Petitioner therefore prays: PRAYER It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may graciously pleased to:- a. For an order directing the State of Haryana to admit all the petitioner s 5(five) children in the Kendriya Vidyalay School, Panchkula with hostel accommodation free until the end of their education with all expenses paid for including hostel expenses by the State; b. For an order directing compensation to be paid to the petitioner for the rape of his daughter and the murder of his wife as may be deemed fit by this Hon ble Court; c. For an order directing the state of Haryana to pay for the entire legal expenses and fees of a lawyer chosen by the petitioner to assist the petitioner and the victim girl in all the legal proceedings;

28 d. For an order directing the state of Haryana to rehabilitate the petitioner and his entire family at a suitable place chosen by the petitioner outside the village where he currently resides by providing land, a house, government employment for the victim girl, an Antyodaya Anna Yojana Card, government employment for the petitioner and such other benefits as deemed appropriate by this Hon ble Court. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONERS AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER BE GRATEFUL. Date: Place: New Delhi Filed by JYOTI MENDIRATTA (ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)